Wikileaks cables and Saudi oil:

[Appaholic]

Agree. Solar & wind can be used on a small scale (we are considering for our house as well as windmill) which can certainly supplement an individual family's need for energy. But nuclear is the way to go & environmentalists need to get over the knee-jerk negative reaction to this idea.

Environmentalists are starting to invalidate themselves in the court of public opinion as they fight any alternative changes to domestic power supply while only offering conservation. Conservation should be a laudable goal, even rewarded in some manner to promote it's use, but it's not the answer. We need more power and right now, your best long-term alternatives are either dealing with some nuclear waste or continuing to blow the tops off of mountains for more coal.

TerraPower’s traveling wave reactor (TWR) will offer a path to zero-emission, proliferation-resistant energy that produces significantly smaller amounts of nuclear waste than conventional nuclear reactors. After an initial start-up with with a small amount of low-enriched material, this innovative reactor design can run for decades on depleted uranium – currently a waste byproduct of the enrichment process. An established fleet of TWRs could operate without enrichment or reprocessing for millennia. TerraPower has explored the advanced physics of this concept in detail with 21st-century computational tools and is moving forward with the overall plant design.

http://www.terrapower.com/Home.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Just need to hope that Exxon, BP or Tman don't blow up their research labs...

Sounds awesome, but is it proven technology on a large scale like current nuclear reactors in Europe? And even if it is, I imagine environmentalists will find something to protest as it will consume some natural resource or impact the environment in some manner....or, as you say, TMan, Exxon or BP will squash the plans because they can't make a buck off it....nothing is free....

[Grizalltheway]

http://www.terrapower.com/Home.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Just need to hope that Exxon, BP or Tman don't blow up their research labs...

Sounds awesome, but is it proven technology on a large scale like current nuclear reactors in Europe? And even if it is, I imagine environmentalists will find something to protest as it will consume some natural resource or impact the environment in some manner....or, as you say, TMan, Exxon or BP will squash the plans because they can't make a buck off it....nothing is free....

No, but I would definitely say it's more promising than fusion reactors at this point, especially since the main financial backer is Bill Gates...

[Appaholic]

Sounds awesome, but is it proven technology on a large scale like current nuclear reactors in Europe? And even if it is, I imagine environmentalists will find something to protest as it will consume some natural resource or impact the environment in some manner....or, as you say, TMan, Exxon or BP will squash the plans because they can't make a buck off it....nothing is free....

No, but I would definitely say it's more promising than fusion reactors at this point, especially since the main financial backer is Bill Gates...

...& the fact that it takes about 10yrs to get a nuclear plant built & online after you pay off the environmentalist's....which takes about 15-20 yrs....

[Grizalltheway]

No, but I would definitely say it's more promising than fusion reactors at this point, especially since the main financial backer is Bill Gates...

...& the fact that it takes about 10yrs to get a nuclear plant built & online after you pay off the environmentalist's....which takes about 15-20 yrs....

Yeah, definitely need to reduce the red tape involved with that. But, the ghosts of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island aren't going away anytime soon.

[GannonFan]

There is no one answer, other than solar in the unfortunately distant future, but today conservation is a significant factor and you need only look back to $4/gal gas to see the proof.

I don't disagree. With regard to oil-based power, we need to conserve as much as possible as it is finite source. But conserving a finite source only puts off the inevitable & I think that's where environmentalists (not conservationists, but the militant environmentalists) are missing the boat. Reality is this world, it's people & it's economy needs power -- lot's of it -- and the country's that do conserve their resources will eventually be invaded by country's that don't conserve resources. Hence the need for nuclear.

Dreaming about the day that solar solves all our problems is a fun way to pass the afternoon, but at the end of the day it's nothing more than day dreaming. I'm sure we'll look back in 100 years or 200 years and just be shocked at our backward times, but that's true in almost any era. In the meantime, rather than sitting around for the one spark of inspiration that will solve all our energy problems, we need to be doing the down and dirty work of normal, everyday science - i.e. making small baby-step advances every day, and slowly making realistic alternatives (nuclear, fuel cells, natural gas) more accessible and cheaper. Appy's right, conservation is a nice thing to do, but it can't be the main focus - there are more and more people on this Earth everyday and that's not going to go away. We need lots of energy and we need to use technologies that can be viable in the next few years, not 50 or 100.

[houndawg]

I don't disagree. With regard to oil-based power, we need to conserve as much as possible as it is finite source. But conserving a finite source only puts off the inevitable & I think that's where environmentalists (not conservationists, but the militant environmentalists) are missing the boat. Reality is this world, it's people & it's economy needs power -- lot's of it -- and the country's that do conserve their resources will eventually be invaded by country's that don't conserve resources. Hence the need for nuclear.

Dreaming about the day that solar solves all our problems is a fun way to pass the afternoon, but at the end of the day it's nothing more than day dreaming. I'm sure we'll look back in 100 years or 200 years and just be shocked at our backward times, but that's true in almost any era. In the meantime, rather than sitting around for the one spark of inspiration that will solve all our energy problems, we need to be doing the down and dirty work of normal, everyday science - i.e. making small baby-step advances every day, and slowly making realistic alternatives (nuclear, fuel cells, natural gas) more accessible and cheaper. Appy's right, conservation is a nice thing to do, but it can't be the main focus - there are more and more people on this Earth everyday and that's not going to go away. We need lots of energy and we need to use technologies that can be viable in the next few years, not 50 or 100.

Maybe it is just dreaming, but not because we couldn't do it if we were serious about it the way we were serious about flying to the moon in a tin can forty years ago.

[GannonFan]

Dreaming about the day that solar solves all our problems is a fun way to pass the afternoon, but at the end of the day it's nothing more than day dreaming. I'm sure we'll look back in 100 years or 200 years and just be shocked at our backward times, but that's true in almost any era. In the meantime, rather than sitting around for the one spark of inspiration that will solve all our energy problems, we need to be doing the down and dirty work of normal, everyday science - i.e. making small baby-step advances every day, and slowly making realistic alternatives (nuclear, fuel cells, natural gas) more accessible and cheaper. Appy's right, conservation is a nice thing to do, but it can't be the main focus - there are more and more people on this Earth everyday and that's not going to go away. We need lots of energy and we need to use technologies that can be viable in the next few years, not 50 or 100.

Maybe it is just dreaming, but not because we couldn't do it if we were serious about it the way we were serious about flying to the moon in a tin can forty years ago.

Hey, I'm all for optimism, but let's be honest, there will be some limit to what we can do in a short period of time no matter how serious we get about doing it. If not, then under your scenario, why would we stop at just being able to cost effectively harness solar power? If we really get serious about it, we can make 89's idea of dilithium crystals realized as well. And teleportation, and warp engines, and everything else. Apparently, we just need to collectively want to do it and then it's possible.

Flying to the moon was an incredible accomplishment. But the scope of that accomplishment pales in comparison to making the kind of leap in terms of worldwide energy production you are alluding to. There's a lot of things out there, from medicine to energy to anything you can think of, that we haven't solved yet, no matter how much we've wanted to solve them. Wanting to do something is great - but time will still be needed.

[houndawg]

Maybe it is just dreaming, but not because we couldn't do it if we were serious about it the way we were serious about flying to the moon in a tin can forty years ago.

Hey, I'm all for optimism, but let's be honest, there will be some limit to what we can do in a short period of time no matter how serious we get about doing it. If not, then under your scenario, why would we stop at just being able to cost effectively harness solar power? If we really get serious about it, we can make 89's idea of dilithium crystals realized as well. And teleportation, and warp engines, and everything else. Apparently, we just need to collectively want to do it and then it's possible.

Flying to the moon was an incredible accomplishment. But the scope of that accomplishment pales in comparison to making the kind of leap in terms of worldwide energy production you are alluding to. There's a lot of things out there, from medicine to energy to anything you can think of, that we haven't solved yet, no matter how much we've wanted to solve them. Wanting to do something is great - but time will still be needed.

Of course time is needed, you're being disingenuous, and modern nuclear could bridge the gap nicely, but why do you throw up this red herring of "leap in terms of worldwide energy production"? It's not about production, GF, it's about collection and distribution; more energy than we could ever possibly use is already being produced by fusion and sitting there for the taking. I thought you had a technical background but I must have you confused with with somebody else. Clearly a nation that can fly a can to the moon ten years after starting the space race with spectacular failures of rockets blowing up on the launch pad and BBQ'd astronauts and primitive computers could do a tremendous amount in ten years of R&D with today's technology. To say that because we don't have it off-the-shelf today that we are 50 to 100 years away is really kind of breathtaking in it's lack of understanding.

[GannonFan]

Hey, I'm all for optimism, but let's be honest, there will be some limit to what we can do in a short period of time no matter how serious we get about doing it. If not, then under your scenario, why would we stop at just being able to cost effectively harness solar power? If we really get serious about it, we can make 89's idea of dilithium crystals realized as well. And teleportation, and warp engines, and everything else. Apparently, we just need to collectively want to do it and then it's possible.

Flying to the moon was an incredible accomplishment. But the scope of that accomplishment pales in comparison to making the kind of leap in terms of worldwide energy production you are alluding to. There's a lot of things out there, from medicine to energy to anything you can think of, that we haven't solved yet, no matter how much we've wanted to solve them. Wanting to do something is great - but time will still be needed.

Of course time is needed, you're being disingenuous, and modern nuclear could bridge the gap nicely, but why do you throw up this red herring of "leap in terms of worldwide energy production"? It's not about production, GF, it's about collection and distribution; more energy than we could ever possibly use is already being produced by fusion and sitting there for the taking. I thought you had a technical background but I must have you confused with with somebody else. Clearly a nation that can fly a can to the moon ten years after starting the space race with spectacular failures of rockets blowing up on the launch pad and BBQ'd astronauts and primitive computers could do a tremendous amount in ten years of R&D with today's technology. To say that because we don't have it off-the-shelf today that we are 50 to 100 years away is really kind of breathtaking in it's lack of understanding.

Like I said, I'm all for it, I think a world where we can get all that energy from the sun would be fantastic. But what I think is breathtaking in its lack of understanding is you comparing sending a 3 man capsule to the moon with being able to harness and distribute solar energy in enough quantity to solve our energy needs, and thinking that we're only unable to do it because we haven't decided we want to do it. I'm not directly involved in solar energy in the work I do, but I have enough technical understanding to realize the complexity involved. Considering the massive opportunity that would be there for the person or company that could solve the problem, it's not as if people don't want to do it today. It really is just that hard. We'll get them some day, and it may truly take 50-100 years (hopefully sooner) but it's a huge leap technology-wise from where we are today. It's great to have that goal in the distance, but in the here and now, we still can't make nuclear energy perfect (little to no waste), we can't commoditize fuel cells, and we can't even fully realize the potential of natural gas which we're finding in increasingly larger volumes. Major technilogical breakthroughs are great, but I don't think you're realizing the real amount of effort and knowledge that goes into them - flying 3 guys to the moon and back, even 40 years ago, was a walk in the park compared to what you're talking about.

[houndawg]

Of course time is needed, you're being disingenuous, and modern nuclear could bridge the gap nicely, but why do you throw up this red herring of "leap in terms of worldwide energy production"? It's not about production, GF, it's about collection and distribution; more energy than we could ever possibly use is already being produced by fusion and sitting there for the taking. I thought you had a technical background but I must have you confused with with somebody else. Clearly a nation that can fly a can to the moon ten years after starting the space race with spectacular failures of rockets blowing up on the launch pad and BBQ'd astronauts and primitive computers could do a tremendous amount in ten years of R&D with today's technology. To say that because we don't have it off-the-shelf today that we are 50 to 100 years away is really kind of breathtaking in it's lack of understanding.

Like I said, I'm all for it, I think a world where we can get all that energy from the sun would be fantastic. But what I think is breathtaking in its lack of understanding is you comparing sending a 3 man capsule to the moon with being able to harness and distribute solar energy in enough quantity to solve our energy needs, and thinking that we're only unable to do it because we haven't decided we want to do it. I'm not directly involved in solar energy in the work I do, but I have enough technical understanding to realize the complexity involved. Considering the massive opportunity that would be there for the person or company that could solve the problem, it's not as if people don't want to do it today. It really is just that hard. We'll get them some day, and it may truly take 50-100 years (hopefully sooner) but it's a huge leap technology-wise from where we are today. It's great to have that goal in the distance, but in the here and now, we still can't make nuclear energy perfect (little to no waste), we can't commoditize fuel cells, and we can't even fully realize the potential of natural gas which we're finding in increasingly larger volumes. Major technilogical breakthroughs are great, but I don't think you're realizing the real amount of effort and knowledge that goes into them - flying 3 guys to the moon and back, even 40 years ago, was a walk in the park compared to what you're talking about.

Specifically, what are these currently-insurmountable hurdles that would be a complete waste of time doing R&D on?

Very much what the naysayers were saying at the beginning of the space race - never been done, can't do it, maybe in 50 years....

[Grizalltheway]

Like I said, I'm all for it, I think a world where we can get all that energy from the sun would be fantastic. But what I think is breathtaking in its lack of understanding is you comparing sending a 3 man capsule to the moon with being able to harness and distribute solar energy in enough quantity to solve our energy needs, and thinking that we're only unable to do it because we haven't decided we want to do it. I'm not directly involved in solar energy in the work I do, but I have enough technical understanding to realize the complexity involved. Considering the massive opportunity that would be there for the person or company that could solve the problem, it's not as if people don't want to do it today. It really is just that hard. We'll get them some day, and it may truly take 50-100 years (hopefully sooner) but it's a huge leap technology-wise from where we are today. It's great to have that goal in the distance, but in the here and now, we still can't make nuclear energy perfect (little to no waste), we can't commoditize fuel cells, and we can't even fully realize the potential of natural gas which we're finding in increasingly larger volumes. Major technilogical breakthroughs are great, but I don't think you're realizing the real amount of effort and knowledge that goes into them - flying 3 guys to the moon and back, even 40 years ago, was a walk in the park compared to what you're talking about.

Specifically, what are these currently-insurmountable hurdles that would be a complete waste of time doing R&D on?

Very much what the naysayers were saying at the beginning of the space race - never been done, can't do it, maybe in 50 years....

I would guess the huge leap in energy storage technology needed to harness all of the potential solar energy out there, but it certainly wouldn't be a waste of time to figure it out.

[houndawg]

Specifically, what are these currently-insurmountable hurdles that would be a complete waste of time doing R&D on?

Very much what the naysayers were saying at the beginning of the space race - never been done, can't do it, maybe in 50 years....

I would guess the huge leap in energy storage technology needed to harness all of the potential solar energy out there, but it certainly wouldn't be a waste of time to figure it out.

That would be a big one, storage underground as compressed air is one avenue of research; pump up the chamber during the day and the released air spins turbines at night. Most efficient would be collecting in space where the sun always shines and putting it straight into the grid, which needs a massive overhaul/expansion regardless of where we go from here. There was a very interesting experiment that didn't go off on one of the space shuttles because of mechanical problems and I don't know if they ever followed it up: take a cable and orbit it in such an orientation that it passes through the Earth's magnetic field like the wiring in a generator. When the guvmint finally wises up to the limited future of manned space flight, project like this would be a great use of NASA engineering talent.

[GannonFan]

Like I said, I'm all for it, I think a world where we can get all that energy from the sun would be fantastic. But what I think is breathtaking in its lack of understanding is you comparing sending a 3 man capsule to the moon with being able to harness and distribute solar energy in enough quantity to solve our energy needs, and thinking that we're only unable to do it because we haven't decided we want to do it. I'm not directly involved in solar energy in the work I do, but I have enough technical understanding to realize the complexity involved. Considering the massive opportunity that would be there for the person or company that could solve the problem, it's not as if people don't want to do it today. It really is just that hard. We'll get them some day, and it may truly take 50-100 years (hopefully sooner) but it's a huge leap technology-wise from where we are today. It's great to have that goal in the distance, but in the here and now, we still can't make nuclear energy perfect (little to no waste), we can't commoditize fuel cells, and we can't even fully realize the potential of natural gas which we're finding in increasingly larger volumes. Major technilogical breakthroughs are great, but I don't think you're realizing the real amount of effort and knowledge that goes into them - flying 3 guys to the moon and back, even 40 years ago, was a walk in the park compared to what you're talking about.

Specifically, what are these currently-insurmountable hurdles that would be a complete waste of time doing R&D on?

Very much what the naysayers were saying at the beginning of the space race - never been done, can't do it, maybe in 50 years....

Like I said, I have no problem with that being a long term solution - I don't think there's any reason not to think that. You just seem hung up on the fact that you can't understand that sometimes, technical innovation and invention don't run on a specific time schedule. When your argument consists of "we got to the moon in less than 10 years, so we should be able to do anything in 10 years if we really want to" then it's really a non-starter of an argument. Essentially, you seem to think we haven't innovated enough simply because scientists and engineers aren't motivated enough. Like I said, if it's just a matter of deciding to do something and bam, in a decade we'll have it, why stop at solar energy? Trans-warp drives and teleporters would be great to. We apparently just need to be like the little engine and keep repeating the mantra "we think we can". I'll leave this debate now - I've got to tell my boss we're not innovating nearly enough because we haven't truly decided we want to. I'll let you know how it goes.

[houndawg]

Specifically, what are these currently-insurmountable hurdles that would be a complete waste of time doing R&D on?

Very much what the naysayers were saying at the beginning of the space race - never been done, can't do it, maybe in 50 years....

Like I said, I have no problem with that being a long term solution - I don't think there's any reason not to think that. You just seem hung up on the fact that you can't understand that sometimes, technical innovation and invention don't run on a specific time schedule. When your argument consists of "we got to the moon in less than 10 years, so we should be able to do anything in 10 years if we really want to" then it's really a non-starter of an argument. Essentially, you seem to think we haven't innovated enough simply because scientists and engineers aren't motivated enough. Like I said, if it's just a matter of deciding to do something and bam, in a decade we'll have it, why stop at solar energy? Trans-warp drives and teleporters would be great to. We apparently just need to be like the little engine and keep repeating the mantra "we think we can". I'll leave this debate now - I've got to tell my boss we're not innovating nearly enough because we haven't truly decided we want to. I'll let you know how it goes.

That would be a "No, I don't know what currently-insurmountable hurdles exist that would be a complete waste of time R&Ding"?


That passive-agressive thing must be a hit in your workplace.

[GannonFan]

Like I said, I have no problem with that being a long term solution - I don't think there's any reason not to think that. You just seem hung up on the fact that you can't understand that sometimes, technical innovation and invention don't run on a specific time schedule. When your argument consists of "we got to the moon in less than 10 years, so we should be able to do anything in 10 years if we really want to" then it's really a non-starter of an argument. Essentially, you seem to think we haven't innovated enough simply because scientists and engineers aren't motivated enough. Like I said, if it's just a matter of deciding to do something and bam, in a decade we'll have it, why stop at solar energy? Trans-warp drives and teleporters would be great to. We apparently just need to be like the little engine and keep repeating the mantra "we think we can". I'll leave this debate now - I've got to tell my boss we're not innovating nearly enough because we haven't truly decided we want to. I'll let you know how it goes.

That would be a "No, I don't know what currently-insurmountable hurdles exist that would be a complete waste of time R&Ding"?


That passive-agressive thing must be a hit in your workplace.

Have you clicked your heels three times and said "there's no energy like solar energy" yet? Come on man, what are you waiting for, we need that solar energy and we're just waiting for someone to say we should do it!

And I do just fine in my workplace - I'm actually part of that rare breed of Americans still involved in manufacturing. We're innovating everyday here, just not apparently as fast as message board folks would like to believe is possible. We'll work harder, promise.

[houndawg]

That would be a "No, I don't know what currently-insurmountable hurdles exist that would be a complete waste of time R&Ding"?


That passive-agressive thing must be a hit in your workplace.

Have you clicked your heels three times and said "there's no energy like solar energy" yet? Come on man, what are you waiting for, we need that solar energy and we're just waiting for someone to say we should do it!

And I do just fine in my workplace - I'm actually part of that rare breed of Americans still involved in manufacturing. We're innovating everyday here, just not apparently as fast as message board folks would like to believe is possible. We'll work harder, promise.

That's wonderful, dude, you keep up the good work.

[HI54UNI]

What are your electric rates right now? Are you ready to pay for the cost of these technologies? I was at a meeting yesterday and there was a speaker about nuclear energy. he said electricity out of a new plant will be 10-14 cents a kwh. Then you still have the cost of transmission and distribution on top of that. The current coal plants that the tree huggers want shut down probably product electricity at a cost of 3 cents a kwh for comparison.

The same speaker said he recently spoke to a group of college students. He asked how many paid their own electric bills. He said about 1/2 raised their hand. He then asked if they were prepared to have their utility bills double to pay for all the new regulations, new nuclear plants, etc. Most said "no" because they couldn't afford it. He then asked who should pay the difference and many responded with "the government".

[Grizalltheway]

What are your electric rates right now? Are you ready to pay for the cost of these technologies? I was at a meeting yesterday and there was a speaker about nuclear energy. he said electricity out of a new plant will be 10-14 cents a kwh. Then you still have the cost of transmission and distribution on top of that. The current coal plants that the tree huggers want shut down probably product electricity at a cost of 3 cents a kwh for comparison.

The same speaker said he recently spoke to a group of college students. He asked how many paid their own electric bills. He said about 1/2 raised their hand. He then asked if they were prepared to have their utility bills double to pay for all the new regulations, new nuclear plants, etc. Most said "no" because they couldn't afford it. He then asked who should pay the difference and many responded with "the government".

Just tree huggers? What about people who live near them, and have to breathe the shit that comes out? Or people like Appa who get to see the tops of their mountains taken off?

[houndawg]

What are your electric rates right now? Are you ready to pay for the cost of these technologies? I was at a meeting yesterday and there was a speaker about nuclear energy. he said electricity out of a new plant will be 10-14 cents a kwh. Then you still have the cost of transmission and distribution on top of that. The current coal plants that the tree huggers want shut down probably product electricity at a cost of 3 cents a kwh for comparison.

The same speaker said he recently spoke to a group of college students. He asked how many paid their own electric bills. He said about 1/2 raised their hand. He then asked if they were prepared to have their utility bills double to pay for all the new regulations, new nuclear plants, etc. Most said "no" because they couldn't afford it. He then asked who should pay the difference and many responded with "the government".

Oh those mean ol' tree huggers and their vast political power.

Bro, it doesn't matter if I'm ready or not for the costs, we have a near obsolete grid right now, those costs are coming regardless. Our infrastructure is old and in need of upgrade. Fortunately the Chinese are producing solar panels and the costs comes down every day. Lots of net metering coming soon.

[houndawg]

What are your electric rates right now? Are you ready to pay for the cost of these technologies? I was at a meeting yesterday and there was a speaker about nuclear energy. he said electricity out of a new plant will be 10-14 cents a kwh. Then you still have the cost of transmission and distribution on top of that. The current coal plants that the tree huggers want shut down probably product electricity at a cost of 3 cents a kwh for comparison.

The same speaker said he recently spoke to a group of college students. He asked how many paid their own electric bills. He said about 1/2 raised their hand. He then asked if they were prepared to have their utility bills double to pay for all the new regulations, new nuclear plants, etc. Most said "no" because they couldn't afford it. He then asked who should pay the difference and many responded with "the government".

Just tree huggers? What about people who live near them, and have to breathe the **** that comes out? Or people like Appa who get to see the tops of their mountains taken off?

Who else but tree huggers could possibly be opposed to breathing poison and removing mountaintops?

[HI54UNI]

What are your electric rates right now? Are you ready to pay for the cost of these technologies? I was at a meeting yesterday and there was a speaker about nuclear energy. he said electricity out of a new plant will be 10-14 cents a kwh. Then you still have the cost of transmission and distribution on top of that. The current coal plants that the tree huggers want shut down probably product electricity at a cost of 3 cents a kwh for comparison.

The same speaker said he recently spoke to a group of college students. He asked how many paid their own electric bills. He said about 1/2 raised their hand. He then asked if they were prepared to have their utility bills double to pay for all the new regulations, new nuclear plants, etc. Most said "no" because they couldn't afford it. He then asked who should pay the difference and many responded with "the government".

Just tree huggers? What about people who live near them, and have to breathe the shit that comes out? Or people like Appa who get to see the tops of their mountains taken off?

Nice deflection. Now answer the question. Are you ready to pay 25 cents a kwh (or more)? Are you ready to pay higher prices for everything you buy because electricity will cost Ford, Walmart, the farmer, etc. more? Are you ready for your taxes to go up so the schools and other government buildings can pay the higher costs? Are you ready to contribute more money, either through a personal donation or through higher taxes, so we can provide more heating assistance to the poor that can no longer afford their electric bill?

[HI54UNI]

What are your electric rates right now? Are you ready to pay for the cost of these technologies? I was at a meeting yesterday and there was a speaker about nuclear energy. he said electricity out of a new plant will be 10-14 cents a kwh. Then you still have the cost of transmission and distribution on top of that. The current coal plants that the tree huggers want shut down probably product electricity at a cost of 3 cents a kwh for comparison.

The same speaker said he recently spoke to a group of college students. He asked how many paid their own electric bills. He said about 1/2 raised their hand. He then asked if they were prepared to have their utility bills double to pay for all the new regulations, new nuclear plants, etc. Most said "no" because they couldn't afford it. He then asked who should pay the difference and many responded with "the government".

Oh those mean ol' tree huggers and their vast political power.

Bro, it doesn't matter if I'm ready or not for the costs, we have a near obsolete grid right now, those costs are coming regardless. Our infrastructure is old and in need of upgrade. Fortunately the Chinese are producing solar panels and the costs comes down every day. Lots of net metering coming soon.

Net metering is a subsidy to the wealthy that can afford to purchase wind turbines, solar panels, etc.

[HI54UNI]

Just tree huggers? What about people who live near them, and have to breathe the **** that comes out? Or people like Appa who get to see the tops of their mountains taken off?

Who else but tree huggers could possibly be opposed to breathing poison and removing mountaintops?

The tree huggers are a big part of the problem because they are so blinded by their hatred of anything coal. For example Alliant Energy proposed to build a new coal fired plant and in exchange they would shut down 3 older plants. Although it was larger the new plant would have emitted less pollution because of all the new technology such as scrubbers, baghouses, etc. However the tree huggers fought them every step of the way so Alliant decided to give up and cancel the project. So we still have those 3 old plants emitting pollution everyday so Alliant can meet their power supply needs. Great move wasn't it?

[houndawg]

Oh those mean ol' tree huggers and their vast political power.

Bro, it doesn't matter if I'm ready or not for the costs, we have a near obsolete grid right now, those costs are coming regardless. Our infrastructure is old and in need of upgrade. Fortunately the Chinese are producing solar panels and the costs comes down every day. Lots of net metering coming soon.

Net metering is a subsidy to the wealthy that can afford to purchase wind turbines, solar panels, etc.

Er, yes. Like I said, they get cheaper by the day.

[Appaholic]

Just tree huggers? What about people who live near them, and have to breathe the shit that comes out? Or people like Appa who get to see the tops of their mountains taken off?

Nice deflection. Now answer the question. Are you ready to pay 25 cents a kwh (or more)? Are you ready to pay higher prices for everything you buy because electricity will cost Ford, Walmart, the farmer, etc. more? Are you ready for your taxes to go up so the schools and other government buildings can pay the higher costs? Are you ready to contribute more money, either through a personal donation or through higher taxes, so we can provide more heating assistance to the poor that can no longer afford their electric bill?

Valid questions HI5. No easy answers & it comes down to waht an individual values more. Persoanlly, yes, I'd rather pay more than see the mountains get blown off. If the costs go up too much, then I won't use as much....you spend what you make. If there is a happy medium (underground mining), then I'm interested. But if the only viable alternative to higher prices is completely changing the landscape of sections of Appalachia while poisoning groundwater with slurry run-off, then I will pay higher prices. But, I realize I'm in the minority, so I guess I'll have to keep monkey wrenchin'....